User:Mer0814/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Tardigrade article

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have an interest in tardigrades, which are microscopic organisms known for their hardiness in many harsh environments. The article itself looks well informed and educational, however i see a few spots that are without citations.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead starts out very strongly, its well linked, and does a good job summarizing and introducing the rest of the article. The second paragraph does not have any citations, but instead does a good job of pointing out a common perspective while maintaining an unbiased and objective tone. The rest of the introduction is very informative and provides a good overview for the rest of the article.

The general content of the article remains informative, but there are a few things that could use some more detail. For example, the article briefly mentions that adult tardigrades of the same species have the same number of cells, and notes the general count of the cells, but does not go into much detail about why this is significant. Additionally, they mention the lack of nephridia, but do not go into much detail about the significance. The sources seem reputable, but a few of them were used many times for a lot of information, so perhaps some more diversity citation-wise would be nice. I wish they discussed the tardigrades tolerance to environmental toxins some more. The only notable thing they mentioned here wasn't confirmed information, which might be better if coupled with some more solid and reputable information. There is some information throughout the article that sort of states something, and then immediately states it as unreliable information, or that it was later proven wrong.

The pictures used to illustrate the diversity of tardigrades is done well, and the photos of the reconstructions of tardigrades are a nice touch. Additionally the older representations of tardigrades demonstrate well how the information on them has changed over time.

It was interesting reading through the talk page and seeing the discourse on the pop culture references. I also wondered about its significance. I feel as though if the article is labeled as high-importance, its likely popular. Also tardigrades are relatively popular pop-culture wise, so it could be good to add this information to draw the interest of a reader who might not be as interested in the sometimes complicated biological and taxonomical information.

The information about their tolerances under the physiology section and throughout some other parts of the article get a little bit repetitive. Especially information about their radiation, temperature, and dessication tolerance could be condensed a little bit to make the article more concise.